Will a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine exist within the next decade

ENGINEERING

Will a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine exist within
the next decade?

Viewpoint:
Yes, battery-powered, fuel-cell electric, and hybrid vehicles are
technologically viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine now,
and they are likely to be economically viable within the decade.

Viewpoint:
No, current internal combustion engine technology has many advantages
over its potential competitors—lower costs of production and
operation, a longer driving range before refueling, and better overall
performance—that will ensure its dominance for several decades to
come.

The internal combustion engine is a versatile power source, used in
everything from lawn mowers to rockets. However, it is most commonly
associated with the car and other road transport vehicles, and it is this
association that has come under increasing criticism and scrutiny in
recent years. With a growing awareness of the risks of pollution to both
health and the environment, the internal combustion engine has become less
desirable, and practical alternatives are being sought by governments,
corporations, and environmental groups worldwide.

Essentially, an internal combustion engine works like a cannon. A
flammable substance, such as gasoline, is ignited in a small, enclosed
space, and the resulting explosion releases energy in the form of
expanding gas that can propel an object with great force. A typical car
engine has hundreds of such explosions a minute, and harnesses some of the
energy produced to turn the drive shaft. As the name implies, the
combustion takes place inside the engine, as opposed to an external
combustion engine, where the fuel burns outside of the engine, such as in
a steam-powered train.

Today, the internal combustion engine is the dominant vehicle engine the
world over. However, there were many other alternatives proposed and
produced in the early days of automobiles, including electric, steam, and
even liquid air-powered cars. The first electric motor was produced in
1833, and many models of electric cars were available from the 1880s to
the turn of the century. Steam cars were also produced in the 1880s. The
first gasoline-fuelled, internal combustion engine cars were built in 1891
and quickly made an impact. They had a much longer range than electric
cars, and competed well against steam cars in endurance races.

Early electric and steam cars had many advantages over rival internal
combustion models, including speed. In 1898 an electric car achieved the
record speed of 39.25 mph (63 km), and a year later another electric model
went over 65 mph (104.6 km). That record held until 1902, when a steam
power vehicle reached 75.06 mph (121 km). Electric cars were also
quieter—some were almost silent—and did not produce
unpleasant exhaust fumes.

However, the internal combustion engine, while noisier, hotter, and
dirtier than electric motors, began to dominate the car market. Other
types of cars had their own problems. Early electric batteries were heavy
and corroded quickly, needing to be replaced every two years, and there
were many cases of battery leaks producing noxious fumes. Gasoline became
cheaper; the
speed, performance, range, and durability of the internal combustion
engine were improved; and consumers began to prefer the noise and power of
the internal combustion engine-driven car. The electric engine came to be
associated with senior citizens, while the petrol engine was seen as
progressive, reliable, and perhaps most importantly, cheaper to buy and
run. The internal combustion engine thus prevailed.

However, while the internal combustion engine-driven car dominated the
twentieth century, the twenty-first seems likely to see the reintroduction
of electric cars. There are compelling reasons to find alternatives, from
a greater awareness of the effects of pollution and fears over global
warming, to concerns that the supply of oil is drying up, or at least
becoming more expensive to find and extract.

Many different types of cars are being developed. Most of the problems
that plagued the battery-powered car of the nineteenth century have been
resolved. Modern car batteries are safer, last longer, and provide more
power than previous-generation batteries. Another alternative electric car
type uses fuel cells, which produce electricity rather than storing it as
long as there is fuel in the cell. The standard fuel for fuel cells is
hydrogen, which is a cheap and plentiful gas but which is also extremely
flammable, and is often linked in the public mind with the
Hindenburg
airship disaster.

Hybrid engines have also been proposed. These use either a combination of
two alternative technologies, such as fuel cells and batteries, or one
alternative technology with a standard internal combustion engine. While
many of these combinations result in a longer drive range and improved
performance, the need to have two engines adds weight and size to the
vehicle.

There is much debate over which alternative engine or combination is best
able to reduce car emissions and still provide the consumer with the
necessary power and range. Currently, there are a bewildering choice of
options, each requiring its own infrastructure of refuelling stations and
service industries. A number of different alternative vehicles are in use
all over the world, and are particularly successful in niche areas, such
as inner-city transport. However, it seems likely that only a few,
possibly just one, will emerge as a serious challenger to the internal
combustion engine.

The same concerns over the environment that have given rise to alternative
engine research have also resulted in many recent improvements to the
internal combustion engine. Modern cars have significantly lower emissions
of undesirable gases than those of a few decades ago, and are more fuel
efficient. Yet at the same time, car manufacturers have made and promoted
larger cars, which tend to have lower fuel efficiency.

Perhaps the biggest negative factors that alternative car engines have to
overcome are not technical, but economic and perceptual. Currently the
cost of alternative cars is much higher than standard vehicles. While mass
production techniques will bring prices down, it may still be many years
before they approach parity with internal combustion engine cars.
Operating costs also need to be lowered, and the availability of
refuelling stations needs to be increased. Public perception also needs to
be changed if alternative engines are to become desirable. Whatever the
realities, electric cars are still seen by the majority of car buyers as
small, powerless, and operable only over short distances.

There is a seemingly unstoppable trend to new engines in cars to replace
the long-serving internal combustion engine, for a variety of compelling
reasons. However, when such technology will become commonplace on the
roads is still an open question.

—DAVID TULLOCH

Viewpoint: Yes, battery-powered, fuel-cell electric, and hybrid vehicles
are technologically viable alternatives to the internal combustion
engine now, and they are likely to be economically viable within the
decade.

Not only will a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine
exist within the next decade, it exists today, although the term
"viable" may be cause for disagreement. Applying
Webster's
definition of viable as "workable and likely to survive or have
real meaning" raises new questions: viable technologically or
viable economically? Technologically, the answer is "yes."
The alternative to the internal combustion engine is the electric
powered vehicle. Small numbers of battery-powered, fuel-cell electric,
and hybrid electric vehicles are in use today, and there is a worldwide
race to get more of the new technology vehicles on the road. One factor
slowing that race is vehicle cost, so economically, the answer is a
qualified "yes."

There are many uncertainties regarding what is economical. In the year
2001, there is no contest. The internal combustion vehicle is more
economical than any alternative. The internal combustion engine
revolutionized transportation and the economy, as the twentieth century
evolved. By the start of the twenty-first century,
there were more than 200 million vehicles on the road in the United
States. Fueling their internal combustion engines has forced the country
to rely on imported oil from the Middle East and to scramble for
reserves with the uncertainty of supplies.

Within the next decade, the cost of fuel and the cost of protecting the
environment may shift the balance. Environmental issues may be so
compelling that health and safety concerns may force a change regardless
of cost. There is also the pressing question of global warming and where
the internal combustion vehicle emissions fit into the equation.

Although great improvements have been made in reducing emissions from
internal combustion engines, the ever-increasing numbers of vehicles,
the size/style of the vehicles, and the increasing number of miles
driven have combined to negate any progress in emission control. After
over 100 years of improvements, the technology of the internal
combustion engine is reaching its limits for improvement. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that motor
vehicles in the United States still account for 78% of all
carbon-monoxide emissions, 45% of nitrogen-oxide emissions, and 37% of
volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere.

Background for the Shift to Alternatives

How do the three types of electric vehicles that are in
use—battery powered, fuel cell, and hybrid
electric—compare? The technology for batteries is very different
from the technology for fuel cells, although neither has any moving
parts, which makes them both very quiet and reliable. Batteries store
electricity, and when they run out, they have to be recharged.
Battery-powered vehicles are limited for the most part to the local
utility types because presently there is no battery that can go the
distance that an internal combustion-powered vehicle can on a full tank
of gas. Some battery-powered vehicles are recharged from photovoltaic
cells in California, but most are recharged from the grid. They
generally are not viewed as competitors to the internal combustion
engine. Fuel cells do not store electricity but rather continuously
produce electricity as long as the fuel is available. Fuel-cell
technology is well developed. Fuel storage issues are the major focus of
current research to give fuel-cell vehicles the performance the public
expects of a vehicle. Hybrids are, in some views, the best of both
worlds.

Most experts agree that fuel cells are the leading technology as an
alternative to the internal combustion-powered vehicle. To maintain a
leadership position in energy technologies, major oil companies are
joining car and engine manufacturers in research and development to
bring fuel-cell powered vehicles to market. Where hydrogen is the fuel
of fuel cells, very probably there will have to be another choice at the
pumps before the first decade of the twenty-first century plays out.

The fuel cell is not a new technology, having been first developed in
1839 when William Grove, a British physicist, discovered the principle
of the fuel cell. It took over 120 years, however, before NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration) found an application for them in
the 1960s when fuel cells were considered safer than nuclear power in
space flight. Fuel cells were used in both the
Gemini
and
Apollo
missions and continue to be used in space ventures as a source of
electricity and water.

With NASA's success, industry became interested, but early
research and development efforts were not very encouraging and the
technology appeared to be much too expensive. An increase in effort came
when the Office of Transportation Technologies of the United States
Department of Energy (DOE) started supporting research and development
in 1984. In 1990, the United States Clean Air Act
Amendments along with the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 gave
impetus to the development of alternatives to the internal combustion
engine for vehicles. The California Air Resources Board recognized in
1990 that it probably would not be possible to meet their first goal of
zero emissions with gasoline-powered vehicles by 1998. That goal was
unrealistic, so a new timetable was set up. Beginning in 2003, 10% of
the new vehicles in California will be required to be zero (or nearly
zero) emission vehicles. Similar regulations are now on the books in
states on the East Coast.

The Technology of Fuel Cells

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device, that is it produces
electricity by a chemical reaction. In the fuel cell, hydrogen gas and
oxygen from the air are combined to produce electricity, and heat and
water are byproducts. Because there is no combustion, fuel cells meet
the zero emissions standard. A fuel cell is composed of two electrodes,
an anode (positive electrode) and a cathode (negative electrode). The
electrodes are separated by a porous medium that serves as an
electrolyte. Fuel cells come in five varieties that are distinguished by
the electrolyte employed.

The fuel cell that is leading the field for vehicle use is identified as
a PEM fuel cell. PEM stands for proton exchange membrane, and also for
polymer electrolyte membrane. The PEM is a thin film polymer membrane
that is coated with a platinum catalyst. An electrolyte by definition is
a substance that dissociates into positively and negatively charged ions
in the presence of water. The membrane is moist, and though the membrane
does not dissociate, it serves as an electrolyte in the sense that it
allows positively charged particles—protons—to pass
through it, thus the name proton exchange membrane. In the cell the
membrane looks like a piece of thick plastic wrap.

In the fuel cell, hydrogen enters at the anode, where the catalyst on
the membrane splits it into a proton and an electron. The proton passes
through the membrane; the electron cannot. Instead, the electron moves
out of the cell, through the external circuit. The electrons moving in
the external circuit are the energy source that drives the vehicle.

On the cathode side of the catalyst-coated membrane, the proton meets
oxygen (from the air) and an electron (from the external circuit) on the
cathode. As it combines with the oxygen, water is formed. Although this
is a heat-producing reaction, and in many cases these reactions are easy
to start, this reaction would not happen without the catalyst.

One single cell produces about 0.7 volts. The cells are stacked in
series so their voltages add up. PEM stacks were used on the
Gemini
spacecraft, although the early version was not as efficient as present
fuel cells, since the former made extensive use of platinum, an
expensive element. Researchers at Los Alamos eventually found a way to
reduce the platinum by 90%. Additional research at a Canadian-based
company, Ballard, further advanced the technology, and the company has
about 400 patents on fuel-cell improvements. Ballard's PEM stack
has reached well over the power density needed for today's
vehicles. International Fuel Cells (IFC), a United Technologies Company
(best known for its jet engines), also has made advances in the
technology, including reducing size, weight, and cost—important
to bring economic viability to
fuel cells. However, there is still work to be done on streamlining the
design and manufacturing processes to produce cheaper cells. Mass
production of fuel cells will also bring down the cost.

Some see the key issue in the move toward fuel cells as the fuel itself,
now that most of the research and development on the cells is
concentrating on fine-tuning to improve the economy of production. Where
will the hydrogen come from? All the major car manufacturers are working
toward sending a fuel-cell powered vehicle to market in numbers. The oil
companies are working with them to develop fuel sources.

There are also technologies related to fuel storage that need to be
addressed. Where hydrogen is the fuel, the problems arise of how to
safely store enough hydrogen, or how to produce enough hydrogen on
board, to give the fuel-cell powered vehicle the same distance a user
can get on a fill-up of gasoline with an internal combustion engine.
Economic viability is in danger if the fuel-cell driven vehicle cannot
provide the same convenience as its internal combustion-driven
competitor. Storage of compressed gas on board is being considered.
Liquefied gas is also being investigated but that involves very cold
temperatures for storage. Cryogenic technologies are involved that may
be too costly. There is also the fear of hydrogen stemming from the
infamous
Hindenburg
disaster of 1937, when the hydrogen-gas powered airship exploded
mid-air, killing thirty-six people.

Allowing that the storage on board problems are solved, oil companies
are looking at producing hydrogen to be pumped into a vehicle's
storage system. Texaco has over 150 patents on a technology they call
gasification that uses otherwise undesirable heavy oil, petroleum coke,
and wastes and converts them into hydrogen. The company could market
hydrogen at a pump with this system.

Another approach is to store a source of hydrogen in the vehicle. One of
the dominant technologies to produce hydrogen on board is the fuel
processor, a mechanical device that uses heat and a catalyst to change
the chemical composition of a hydrocarbon to free the hydrogen in a
system integrated with the fuel cell in the vehicle. IFC has a prototype
ready. The hydro-carbon could be methanol, methane from natural gas or
other sources, or even gasoline that is stored in the vehicle.

The Technology of Hybrid Electric Systems

The hybrid electric vehicle runs on batteries that are recharged as the
vehicle drives. This eliminates the down time at the recharge station
for battery electric vehicles and makes the vehicle as useful as any
internal combustion-driven counterpart. There are a number of systems
employed to recharge the batteries. One that stands out is the
microturbine, which meets California's tough emission standards.
Capstone, a California company, has a microturbine that was put on a
Chattanooga, Tennessee, bus in 1997 as an on-board battery charger, and
it logged more than 30,000 miles with no breakdowns. The bus generates
less than 1/25th the emissions of a diesel bus. Microturbines are now
being used in cities as far away as Christchurch, New Zealand, and
Tokyo, Japan. A microturbine is lighter in weight than an equivalent
diesel engine. In Christchurch, diesels were replaced with
micro-turbines in hybrid electric buses. A microturbine has only one
moving part and is very environmentally friendly. The Capstone
microturbine can run on just about any liquid fuel from natural gas to
landfill methane to diesel.

In Los Angeles, ISER, a bus manufacturer, has a turbine-hybrid drive
system that employs lead-acid batteries with Capstone microturbines
recharging them. An onboard computer network continuously monitors
vehicle power and battery charge levels, and adjusts the turbine power
output to provide just the right amount of power to operate the vehicle.
When the generators are not needed, they are automatically turned off
and the bus runs on battery power. At that time the bus is a zero
emissions electric vehicle. The batteries provide surge power for
acceleration and recapture energy during braking. The microturbine is
fueled with propane.

Presently all the major auto manufacturers are producing hybrid electric
test vehicles under the DOE Office of Transportation Technologies Hybrid
Electric Vehicle Program. One of the recent models is a Dodge Durango
Hybrid sports utility vehicle. Federal legislation to create up to
$3,000 in tax incentives for purchasers of hybrid vehicles could make
them competitive with internal combustion engines. The down side is that
many of them are still using petroleum-based fuels. The good news is
that fuel cell and hybrid electric vehicle technologies have moved out
of the skunk works and are now on the market to provide a
technologically viable alternative to the internal combustion engine
vehicle. Within a decade these alternatives might even be economically
viable.

—M. C. NAGEL

Viewpoint: No, current internal combustion engine technology has many
advantages over its potential competitors—lower costs of
production and operation, a longer driving range before refueling, and
better overall performance—that will ensure its dominance for
several decades to come.

Although concerns over the environment and fuel supplies have fostered
an abundance of research to find alternatives to powering cars and other
vehicles, each new prototype of the "engine-of-the-future"
has demonstrated that replacing the efficient and dependable internal
combustion engine will be a difficult task. Many informed observers,
including officials within the Energy Information Administration at the
United States Department of Energy, predict that several decades will
pass before any of the new technologies under
development—including electric, fuel cell, and hybrid
technology—will begin to have an impact on the market supremacy
of the internal combustion engine. This versatile engine design, which
currently powers more than 200 million vehicles in the United States,
has been the backbone of the transportation industry for more than a
century and for good reason.

From the very beginning the internal combustion engine has had
competitors. For example, the first electric-powered car dates back to
the 1860s, and in 1899, an electric car set the world record for speed
by going faster than 62 miles per hour. But the internal combustion
engine became the technology of choice because of its dependability and
convenience.

Over the years, research has continued to improve the internal
combustion engine, and it has yet to reach its full potential, including
its potential for fuel efficiency and producing cleaner emissions that
are less harmful to the environment. During the 1990s, the internal
combustion engine was improved significantly in terms of its
environmental impact. Increased miles per gallon of gas, for example,
has resulted in better fuel efficiency and less pollution.
Lower polluting emissions have also resulted from improvements in
gasoline, such as the addition of oxygenates, which has lowered
carbon-monoxide emissions by 18%. Furthermore, additional improvements
such as progressively reducing the use of sulfur in gasoline will
further reduce polluting emissions created by the internal combustion
engine.

Overall, because of technologies such as the advanced catalytic
converter and electronic combustion control, automobile emissions
already are lower by 95% compared to the 1960s, despite the fact that
many more cars are on the road today. In addition, most of the cars
produced in the United States in 2001 and beyond emit 99% less
hydrocarbons than cars made in the 1960s. Even if no further
improvements were made in the internal combustion engine, its impact on
the environment would continue to decrease solely due to newer cars with
far lower emissions replacing older cars as they wear out and are sent
to the scrap heap.

With a vast amount of experience in designing internal combustion
engines and huge facilities for producing them, vehicle manufacturers
are also not about to relegate these engines to obscurity in the near
future. Most important, however, current internal combustion engine
technology has many advantages over its potential
competitors—advantages that the consumer demands. These include
lower costs of production and operation, which results in lower costs
for the consumer; a longer driving range before refueling; and better
overall performance.

The Internal Combustion Engine versus the Electric Car

At the beginning of the twentieth century, more than 100 electric car
manufacturers in the United States were vying to produce the vehicle of
choice in this then young but rapidly developing industry. In less than
two decades, nearly all of them had closed up shop. Many of the factors
that led to the demise of the electric vehicle, including the large
disparity in cost and convenience, still remain valid reasons why such
vehicles are unlikely to replace the internal combustion engine in the
next decade.

Despite a decade or more of intensive research and testing, electric
cars are only able to travel approximately 100 miles (160.9 km) before
they need to be recharged. Furthermore, this recharging takes a
considerable amount of time compared to the relatively quick refueling
that takes place at the local gas station. In comparison, a standard
internal combustion engine can take a vehicle about 345 miles (155.2 km)
before refueling is required. Electric cars can also only match the
internal combustion engine in terms of horsepower for a short period of
time (approximately one hour) before their power starts to diminish due
to such factors as speed and cold weather. The electric motor's
shorter range and slower overall speed might have been acceptable early
in the twentieth century when families and businesses usually were
condensed into smaller geographic regions. However, in today's
society people routinely travel much farther distances, and a consumer
public that places a high premium on its "time" has not
shown a propensity to accept electric cars that are slower and require
more stops and recharging.

In a society that is growing more and more environmentally
conscientious, a much touted advantage of electric cars is that they are
much cleaner in terms of environmental impact than cars run by internal
combustion engines. Although electric cars produce nearly zero emissions
from the car itself (perhaps as much as 97% cleaner than an internal
combustion engine), this advantage is greatly negated by how electric
engines are charged. For example, fossil fuels such as coal and oil are
often used to generate electricity, which also produces its own
pollutants. Even some noted environmentalists have conceded that this
fact offsets any of the environmental advantages electric cars have over
the internal combustion engine. Gasoline is now also lead free, but
battery wastes still pose significant environmental problems, including
the disposal of lead and cadmium.

The Internal Combustion Engine versus Fuel Cells

Another technology proposed as the wave of the future are fuel cells,
with most of the focus on hydrogen fuel cells. A fuel cell is an
electrochemical device that uses hydrogen and oxygen gases to produce
electricity. However, like the electric car, fuel-cell cars would have a
limited range in comparison to the internal combustion engine-driven
cars, probably around 200 miles (321.8 km) or so. Although this range
will increase with improvements such as reducing the weight of the car,
reduced car weight would also improve mileage in cars powered by the
internal combustion engine. Comparably, the fuel cell still would only
achieve one-third of the range achieved with an internal combustion
engine. In addition, there is the issue of producing the energy stored
in the fuel cells. This energy would be created by fossil fuels or the
generation of electricity to isolate hydrogen from the air, issues that,
like the electric car, would result in environmental pollutants.
Hydrogen is also volatile and an extremely small molecule that can
filter through the smallest of holes, which increases safety concerns
over leaks and pressurized tanks that could burst.

Fuel cells are also extremely expensive to manufacture. The cost of
$500,000 per kilowatt of power associated with the first fuel cells used
to provide power to space capsules in the early 1960s has been lowered
to approximately $500.
Nevertheless, a fuel-cell engine and drive train costs as much as 10
times the cost of producing an internal combustion engine. As a result,
on average the cost of fuel-cell technology is approximately $25,000 to
$30,000 (and perhaps as much as $45,000 to $65,000) compared to the
average $2,500 to $3,000 cost for the standard internal combustion
engine in many cars. Few consumers are going to readily accept this
significant added expense.

Another factor to consider is the local gas station, which represents an
already existing nationwide infrastructure for providing fuel to
motorists. No such infrastructure exists for fuel-cell vehicles. While
the current infrastructure could be adapted to accommodate fuel cells
that use on-board reformers to isolate hydrogen from gasoline, diesel,
or methanol, the on-board technology would further increase already
higher costs. In addition, it would take up even more space than the
large tank currently needed for fuel cells to provide adequate driving
distances. Fuel-cell technology also still requires fossil fuels just
like the internal combustion engine. It would also likely take more than
a decade for energy companies to create the number of new or overhauled
manufacturing facilities needed to produce enough hydrogen to meet
consumer demands. Furthermore, some estimates indicate that only 2% of
stations would be able to offer fuel-cell car refueling by the year 2011
and only 3.5% by the year 2020.

The Internal Combustion Engine versus the Hybrid

In a sense, the hybrid electric car is a concession that the internal
combustion engine will be around for many years to come. Like the
electric car, the concept of the internal combustion engine-electric
hybrid goes back to the early days of automobiles, with the first United
States patent filed in 1905. However, they were never developed as fully
as the electric car. In essence, the hybrid uses a battery-powered
electric motor for riding around town but also has an internal
combustion engine that could be used for traveling longer distances and,
in some models, to help recharge the battery-powered electric motor.

Although this alternative to the internal combustion engine as the
primary source of power seems attractive, the drawbacks of the current
technology used in this approach are substantial. For example, an
internal combustion engine combined with the need for many batteries and
a large electric motor to power the car requires extra space and more
weight, which decreases the vehicle's overall fuel efficiency.
Both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering have stated that this technology is not cost-effective in
terms of being environmentally friendly, especially since the use of
gasoline or diesel reduces the environmental benefits that are essential
to any new motor technology. Hybrids would also cost approximately
$10,000 to $15,000 more than current car technology.

No Imminent Alternatives

Several reports and studies have stated that current technology will not
provide a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine within
the next decade and, perhaps, not for many more years following. In its
June 2000 policy study
The Increasing Sustainability of Cars, Trucks, and the Internal
Combustion Engine,
the Heartland Institute predicted that "it will be 30 years
before even a modest 10% of all cars and trucks on the nation's
roads are powered by something other than internal combustion
engines."

While the technology does exists to make alternatives to the internal
combustion engine, it has yet to advance to a level that makes it
competitive or viable in terms of consumer needs and wants. For example,
although some electric vehicles have been marketed aggressively in
places like California, they still make up only a small percentage of
the market. And companies such as Honda and General Motors have quit
producing them. Even in Europe and Japan, where gas costs two to three
times more than in the United States and where significant government
and manufacturing subsidies are in place to support consumers in buying
electric vehicles, they make up only about 1% of the market.

With the increasing popularity of sports utility vehicles (SUVs) in the
Unites States throughout the 1990s, consumers obviously have shown their
attraction to vehicles with more horsepower and greater size. To date,
alternatives to the internal combustion engine have resulted in smaller
cars with less power and less passenger and luggage room. Furthermore,
to make up for the technology's additional weight and to increase
driving distances before refueling or recharging, these cars are
integrating more lightweight materials in their construction. The result
are cars that are less safe in the case of accidents, another fact that
consumers are not likely to ignore.

Even if the internal combustion engine were never improved upon, it is
not likely that alternative technologies can overcome factors such as
size, safety, cost, convenience, and power within the next decade. But
the race is not against a technology that is standing still. While new
technologies will continue to improve, car manufacturers also continue
to invest billions in improving the internal combustion engine. Although
currently cost-prohibitive, a standard internal combustion engine may
one day get 80 miles per gallon and be able to travel 545 miles before
refueling. Furthermore, advances in other technologies, such as
computerized explorations for gas and horizontal drillings, are
increasing the long-term production
outputs of oil and gas fields in the United States and other western
countries, thus increasing the prospect of a continuous, long-term, and
relatively inexpensive supply of fuel.

To become a "viable" alternative to the internal
combustion engine, alternative technologies must be as efficient,
dependable, and powerful. Furthermore, they must be as competitive in
terms of cost to the consumer. To reach these goals within a decade is
not possible given the internal combustion engine's current vast
superiority in these areas.

KEY TERMS

ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL:

Where electric energy is produced by a chemical process. Electrons leave
the cell at the anode and return to the cell at the cathode. Any device
to be run by the cell is attached between the anode and the cathode.

EMISSIONS:

Substances discharged into the air.

FOSSIL FUELS:

Fuels that are formed in the earth from plant or animal remains. Fossil
fuels include coal, oil, and natural gas.

HORSEPOWER:

A unit of power equal to 746 watts.

HYDROCARBONS:

Organic compounds containing only carbon and hydrogen; often occur in
petroleum, natural gas, and coal.

HYDROGEN:

The simplest and lightest of the elements; usually colorless and
odorless; highly flammable.

INFRASTRUCTURE:

The resources (including personnel, buildings, or equipment) required
for an activity.

MEMBRANE:

A semi permeable surface or thin film.Charged particles and small
molecules selectively pass through the membrane separating them from a
mixture.

POLYMER:

Commonly called plastic. The term literally means many parts. A polymer
is produced by many molecules of one or more types repeatedly joining
together. The smaller units are called monomers.

SKUNK WORKS:

A laboratory where research and development is done usually on
proprietary projects or behind-the-scenes.

FUEL CELLS IN SPACE

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) started publishing
reports of SPINOFFS annually in the 1970s. The reports feature
industry/government collaborations on breakthrough technologies that are
being developed as a result of the space program. Had NASA been writing
such reports in the 1960s, fuel cell technologies would have been high
on the list of early success stories. Fuel cells—cells that
generate power through the interaction of oxygen and hydrogen
gases—were first invented in the early nineteenth century but not
widely used until the early years of the space program. Fuel cells are
still being featured in SPINOFF reports; in 1999, for instance, the
development of a next-generation PEM fuel cell was featured.

After fuel cells provided on-board power for the
Gemini
and
Apollo
spacecraft, industry became interested. Today, three fuel cell power
plants provide the 28-volt direct current needed for the space shuttle.
The fuel cell system generates all the electrical power for the vehicle
during all mission phases. Cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen are used for
the cells. In addition, cryogenic oxygen is supplied to the
environmental control and life support system for crew cabin
pressurization. The storage temperature for the liquid oxygen is minus
285°F (minus 176°C), and minus 420°F (minus 251°C)
for liquid hydrogen.

In addition to providing all the on-board electrical power (there is no
backup battery), fuel cells also produce water as a byproduct of the
electrochemical reaction. This water is then used as drinking water for
the crew as well as for spacecraft cooling. The fuel cells are alkaline
fuel cell (AFC) power plants that each contain 96 individual cells. The
electrolyte, a solution of potassium hydroxide, gives the fuel cell its
name. AFCs have the advantage of a fast reaction and high performance,
so they are popular for military and space applications. However, AFCs
are also costly. The anode catalyst contains platinum and palladium, and
the cathode catalyst contains gold and platinum. The cost factor is no
doubt part of the reason for continuing research on fuel cells.

—M. C. Nagel

User Contributions:

It's not clear what the date of your article is? Anyway very readable!
I recently read in a US stock article that a new Tiny Engine with universal application and can operate using 6 different fuels, weighs 50% less than conventional engines and has 200% more power, whilst consumes 30% less fuel!!! Quite some statement.
See "Green Chip Stocks" by Jeff Siegel, who make this claim.
What's your thoughts?

I enjoyed your article, good overview. I have an engine that requires less than 1-litre of displacement to produce the perfomance of a 5-6 litre engine
(torque & horse power). 50-20,000rpm, multi-fuel. With this type of efficiency you have the option of producing at least some of the hydrogen on board in order to assist in its opperation. I have been working on this for over 20 years. The technology has been around for some time to clean up the designs of the Internal Combustion Engine but try to bring one to market and see the resistance one gets or the hoops that one is required to jump through. We have been led to think in one direction for so long.
Is it true that less than 5% of all inventions where thought of by engineers? Thanks, Murray Anderson.

Your article is realy interesting, but today we have 99 percent classical internal combustion engines in use and also in next decade will not to bee les than 90 percent. It´s real siriously think about new concepts which revolutionized classical internal combustion emgines, it´s faster, cheaper and more eficient than all hibrids what we have today and tomorow. Problem is into developing politics and wrong developing sistems of the big and powerful companies.
Today we have many realy revolutionary nventions but almoust all outside of the big companies, for example, PAUT engine is more eficient, enviromental friendlyest with less than 50 percent lower weight, smaller number of parts, two sided pistons only with chrankshaft without many moving parts and we need less energy for production. Also PAUT concept of the internal combustion engine opening new opportunities into more eficient and low cost production. All inventions was eassy aplicable on to classical internal combustion engine, espetialy with PAUT designed two stroke cicle.
Best regardes from sunny Dalmatia, Krunoslav Jelovac

DaS Energy has already done so. Much to piston engine makers dislike. It has one moving part a recycling hydro turbine. It is liquid piston driven and excepting of all fuels without modificaton.
Released in Open Rechnology free to copy.

Stating that the Internal comustion engine is "efficient" and will be hard to replace is confusing. An engine that throws away 70-80% of it's energy as friction and heat is not what I would call "efficient". And that is after a century of R&D on it. For such a precious commodity as gasoline coming from often hostile foreign markets, I'm sure we can and must do better.
Also, talking about the problem of "disposal" of lead from batteries is confusing. Who "disposes" of batteries these days? They are recycled.
We keep ignoring the obvious what the israelis are doing with electric cars. QUICKLY REPLACABLE BATTERY PACKS. Drive up, in the same amount of time it takes to fill up your tank with gas (that you will get no more than 20% of the value of) you will have a "new" battery pack. On you go.

Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: